What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I don't think creationist guy knows enough to state the question, but he seems to be saying that one can't prove God does not exist, which requires proving a negative, without knowing "everything", which would allow one to know that "everything" doesn't include God. Mr. Creationist conflates evasion and stopping the debate with with "winning". In his halting, unsophisticated nattering, he is, indeed, completely outflanked by Atheist Kid. The whole mess proves only that Mr. Creationist is full of sh*t, and that Atheist Kid is smarter and more articulate than he.

These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

The creationist's premise is that unless you know everything you can't be sure that anything is true unless someone who knows everything tells you so.

As such, since I don't know everything I can't be sure that God exists unless It tells me so Itself. I assume the creationist believes that God communicates with people through the Bible. However, given the creationist's premise that we can't be sure of anything without knowing everything there is no way for us to know whether the Bible is actually the Word of God.

Mike_LowELL:I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot.

Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room.

Earguy:Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot.

Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room.

Mike_LowELL:I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

Weak troll. You should've put more effort into supporting douchebag than calling a child who won a debate whiny.

Mike_LowELL:I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I'll say. And since we all know how much of a fan the Left is now that "math" (since Saint Clinton invoked it at their convention) and "statistics" (since the Mainstream Media has annointed Saint Nate Silver as the Holy Crusader of Liberalism), here's a test they can do to see it for themselves.

1) Watch the video with pen and paper in hand.2) Mark each time the little boy says "um" or "uh" or some other vocalized pause and each time the man does.3) Tally up the scores and weep.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser.

It's unfortunate the kid didn't really get the chance to (and may not have been eloquent enough to) destroy that bullshiat "can you trust me that 2+2=4 if it has been revealed to me?" argument, because that was a really dumb example.

Benevolent Misanthrope:What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

nmrsnr:I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument.

Yay, fun. :D

These are the two most obvious ones.

3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)

Begs the question. Assumes the being communicating with you is perfect (and is not lying). At least, I think this is question begging, or at least similar to it. Whatever the fallacy is in this situation, it boils down to you not having any reason to be certain in the knowledge that the being communicating with you does indeed have perfect knowledge.

Then you have to throw in the qualification that Hovind had to in TFA, with the statement that there is a rule that the being with perfect knowledge cannot lie (yet never offering a reason why or even allowing anyone the chance to ask). Which means any argument you base off that will beg the question, because it will have to assume those antecedents.

nmrsnr:4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.

Begs the question. Assumes that the Bible is the revealed word of that deity.

nmrsnr:I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

gremlin1:These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

nmrsnr:Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

Pocket Ninja:Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science..

Can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are about that. I would I mean, but you wouldn't buy it. Please though... quote a few 'sources' which back up your 'fact'.

Meh, you guys missed the part after the video ends; basically, jebus rides a velociraptor, with a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker on its tail, down a rainbow and strikes down the lil' commie where she stands. It was awesome.

/ oh, I almost forgot; Jebus was playing the "America, Fark Yeah!" song on his electric guitar.